Understandable that they'd be annoyed with her, and maybe even want to have a word or two, but arresting her on a trumped-up misdemeanor charge is dirty pool, as far as I'm concerned.

And really, all she is doing is spreading readily-available information, which would seem to fall under free speech. You can pass a law against flashing headlights at people, but if somebody chooses to use words to advise any and all that police are ahead, that isn't the same thing. She's not even really aiding anyone in breaking the law. Her message was to nobody in particular, and the natural response to her sign would be to slow down. In that respect, the speed trap is still performing its function as a deterrent, which is supposed to be what it's about.

The harm she's doing is to ticket revenue, which would seem to be their priority in this case. And some cops just have a "don't f**k with us" attitude, even if you're within your rights. Everything else aside, I'm sure they just felt she was in need of a little correction.

Come on, you don't just mess with police operations for no reason then get mad when they come after you. She over stepped her bounds here and they got her for it. What she did was stupid and she's lucky she got off as easily as she did.

Come on, you don't just mess with police operations for no reason then get mad when they come after you. She over stepped her bounds here and they got her for it. What she did was stupid and she's lucky she got off as easily as she did.

What law did she break? Simply "she messed with police operations" is not something I would want upheld as a valid reason. Also, they say that she was arrested for being in the street when a sidewalk was present. However, is it normal to jail someone for that offense?

Come on, you don't just mess with police operations for no reason then get mad when they come after you. She over stepped her bounds here and they got her for it. What she did was stupid and she's lucky she got off as easily as she did.

What law did she break? Simply "she messed with police operations" is not something I would want upheld as a valid reason. Also, they say that she was arrested for being in the street when a sidewalk was present. However, is it normal to jail someone for that offense?

Come on, you don't just mess with police operations for no reason then get mad when they come after you. She over stepped her bounds here and they got her for it. What she did was stupid and she's lucky she got off as easily as she did.

She didn't get off easy. Being locked up with no legal justification is not getting off easy.

The police abused their authority to exact petty revenge. She did something that p**sed them off, and they arrested her on whatever loosely applicable offense they could come up with, because what she was doing was not illegal.

Seriously, "overstepped her bounds?" I'm sure that's what the cops thought, but that phrase is just scary in its implications. You want to live in a society where you don't mess with the police or they'll come after you?

Come on, you don't just mess with police operations for no reason then get mad when they come after you. She over stepped her bounds here and they got her for it. What she did was stupid and she's lucky she got off as easily as she did.

What law did she break? Simply "she messed with police operations" is not something I would want upheld as a valid reason. Also, they say that she was arrested for being in the street when a sidewalk was present. However, is it normal to jail someone for that offense?

Sadly, if the police decide they want to arrest you, it is relatively normal for them to find an offense that will allow them to do so.

You cannot normally arrest people for a misdemeanor offense. What it appears happened here is that they arrested her for obstructing justice (a felony) then dropped the charges.

Of course we only hear her side of the story. She could have been belligerent and totally out of control when the cop arrested her. She does have a prima faciae case for false arrest, however.

I'm not sure what the legal definition is for obstructing justice, but I can't imagine warning people about a speed trap would count.

Come to think of it, even for other kinds of offenses, it seems a little shaky. Is it obstructing justice to stop someone from committing an offense? The aim here was to prevent people from getting caught, but even so, this woman was warning people to slow down ahead lest they get in trouble, and I can't see that being wrong in itself.

To use a different example, say you see an acquaintance getting ready to rob a gas station that has the latest security devices. You explain to him if he goes in there, he will surely be caught, so he doesn't go in. Are you obstructing justice? I don't think so. You've stopped a crime. If anything, you're a part of the security system's deterrent value - proof that it will discourage people from even trying to rob the place. You stopped the guy from offending.

So, maybe because of your actions he can just go somewhere else, where the pickings are easier. Is that your fault? If it is, then the owner of the gas station is as much to blame for securing it so well, and for putting up signs informing people of what he's done. He's encouraging potential robbers to go try their luck someplace easier. That's deterrence, and it's generally considered a good practice.

Or your friend shoplifts an item and you stop him outside the store and make him put it back. He committed the offense, and you've just helped him to avoid punishment. Is that obstructing justice?

There just isn't any way, to my thinking, that warning drivers about a speed trap can be illegal in and of itself. Not without opening a whole can of worms.

I'm not sure what the legal definition is for obstructing justice, but I can't imagine warning people about a speed trap would count.

Come to think of it, even for other kinds of offenses, it seems a little shaky. Is it obstructing justice to stop someone from committing an offense? The aim here was to prevent people from getting caught, but even so, this woman was warning people to slow down ahead lest they get in trouble, and I can't see that being wrong in itself.

To use a different example, say you see an acquaintance getting ready to rob a gas station that has the latest security devices. You explain to him if he goes in there, he will surely be caught, so he doesn't go in. Are you obstructing justice? I don't think so. You've stopped a crime. If anything, you're a part of the security system's deterrent value - proof that it will discourage people from even trying to rob the place. You stopped the guy from offending.

So, maybe because of your actions he can just go somewhere else, where the pickings are easier. Is that your fault? If it is, then the owner of the gas station is as much to blame for securing it so well, and for putting up signs informing people of what he's done. He's encouraging potential robbers to go try their luck someplace easier. That's deterrence, and it's generally considered a good practice.

Or your friend shoplifts an item and you stop him outside the store and make him put it back. He committed the offense, and you've just helped him to avoid punishment. Is that obstructing justice?

There just isn't any way, to my thinking, that warning drivers about a speed trap can be illegal in and of itself. Not without opening a whole can of worms.

Of course, you're correct. The charge is totally absurd under this set of facts. "Obstruction of justice" is a dangerously vague crime, usually defined as something like "A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court." It's something that's often used to nail someone when they can't get you for a "real" crime. Example: you're being investigated for felony A and during an interrogation you lie about something unrelated. Boom, they can get you on an "obstruction of justice" charge (this is what they used to send Martha Stewart away).

Something just crossed my mind- there are many eye witnesses who can say whether or not she was in the road or sidewalk. Based on the story, the cops should be given a harsh punishment if it's true, say three months suspension without pay. If it is true, then this just paints a bad picture over the police department in the public eyes. Also, there is something else wrong with their actions- why wasn't there a sign that said speed trap ahead to warn drivers? this is really bugging me, since there should have been a sign.

"Obstruction of justice" is a dangerously vague crime, usually defined as something like "A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court."

To me, that would mean getting in the way of police, misdirecting them or delaying them when they try to perform their duty. Somebody stalls the cops at the front door while the suspect sneaks out the back, they're obstructing justice. It's easy to see what the purpose of the law is, but it's also easy to see where the vague wording could leave it open to abuse. Stopping people from offending where police are present? That's a big stretch.

Of course, if it's the duty of police to generate revenue through speeding fines, she was interfering with that.